Big Mac, McBLT, a Quarter Pounder with some cheese, Filet-O-Fish, a hamburger, a cheeseburger, a Happy Meal, McNuggets, tasty golden French Fries,regular or larger sizes, salads, Chef or Garden or a Chicken Salad Oriental, big big breakfast, Egg McMuffin, hot Hotcakes and Sausage, maybe Biscuits, Bacon, Egg and Cheese, a sausage, Danish, Hash Browns, too, and for dessert, hot Apple Pies, and sundaes, three varieties, a soft serve cone, three kind of shakes, and chocolaty-chip cookies, and to drink, a Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, an orange drink and Sprite, and Coffee, decaf too, a lowfat milk, also an orange juice, I love McDonalds, good time great taste, and I get this all at one place.
Useful is in the eye of the beholder. I don't have a wheel mouse, so the middle button does vertical scrolling, but if I accidentally hit it twice, this "useful feature" would jump me to a random web page based on whatever is in the selection.
So what would be an efficient way of doing it? How about something in init.d that 'cat's the programs to/dev/null during the bootup. That way, they'll be in the cache when you need them, but then the kernel VM will handle what you do and don't actually need in the working set.
But it *was* described in a printed publication in the US, in 1998. Thats a publically available piece of research by MS and Stanford university, in a peer reviewed journal.
So this invention ("Bayesian spam filtering") was described in printed publication in the US prior to 2001. Not by the patent applicant, sure, BUT THATS NOT IMPORTANT. Go read the statute.
So, under 35 USC 102(b), a patent filed in 2002 is completely worthless, with respect to any claims covering things described in that article.
35 USC 102 : A person shall be entitled to a patent unless... (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States
NAI might have lab notebooks going back several years on this
Well tough shit if they have, because after making an invention, you've only got a year to file. So either NAI "invented" Bayesian filtering during or before '98 (in which case they lose their patent through failing to file in time) or they "invented" it after '98 (in which case they lose their patent through prior art.)
[All this is supposing that they believe their patent covers all spam filtering through Bayesian analysis]
Indeed, a vital piece of the puzzle. But they got theirs pre-war, from some mislabelled luggage, which doesn't make as good a movie as a raid on a scuppered submarine.
In a paragraph about the Altair 8800 you'd think perhaps the context of "For the Altair 8800" wouldn't need to be put into every sentence so some clueless/.er wouldn't try to take it out of context.
No, you'd simply write "working on the Altair 8800 Bill and Bob made its first programming language". It's called clear, concise writing.
It was U110, captured by the crew of HMS Bulldog, complete with an Enigma machine and up-to-date codebooks (May 9, 1941). U559 and U506 were later captured with Enigma machines, the former by crew of HMS Petard (30 October, 1942), the latter by US Navy Task Force 22.3 (June 4, 1944)
Lomborg had just published a (very succesful and widely publicised) book accusing the environmentalists of corruption and incompetence. Did he offer his opponents equal space in his book? Did he bollocks. This *was* the rebuttal.
Environmentalism is a multi-billion-dollar industry.
Yeah, right. How do you suppose the operational research budget of Greenpeace compares to, say, Shell Oil?
If the polar regions are then cooling, wouldn't the greater of influx of fresh water slow down and cease, since this was due to melting in the first place? Does anyone else see this as a self-correcting system?
Well, it might be. But energy constraints make people think this is not an (easily) reversible process. Ocean processes are really, really non-linear, and that means hysteresis.
The statements made in the Summary for Policymakers (which is as far as you've read) are not supported by the science provided in the papers by the Working Groups.
Thats an absolute fabrication. Consider there you go. Find me where the policy maker summary diverges from science in WG1's report. Show me where there WG's members are up in arms about the difference.
when more than $4 billion was poured into the laps of climate scientists to keep this particular gravy train going.
By whom? Who is so interested in perpetuating this that they'll throw billions of dollars into junk science? Why would they do that? Are you suggesting people are writing deliberately erroneous models to keep their funding? That respected journals, with a lengthy and honorable past, knowingly print rubbish because it pays the bills? Wheres your evidence for this idiotic slander?
Remember, the only guys with deep pockets and a need for PR are the energy multinationals. If a climate researcher was really after a fast buck, they'd be the people to suck up to.
It has also been about 5-1/2 years since that model was announced so I would expect to see about 0.1C of warming since then
Theres noise and there's trending. Over 5 years, the predicted trend is less than the noise. Over half a century, the predicted trend is greater than the noise. As to comparison between models, I suggest you read the newer Future prediction sections about NCAR CCM with results on THC retardation and
some climate models are supposedly so accurate, why do we have so many different models that contradict each other?
The CMIP experiments show that the most thorough and complete climate models are now converging, especially over decadal (and longer) timescales. The rest, to some degree or other, suck.
How about proving that any of the links I provided are wrong regardless of their source?
And how might I do that. Refer you to the last 20 years of "JGR (Oceans)" and "JGR (Atmospheres)"? How about the NCAR Climate System Model, which gives good results over 300 years without flux adjustment, or the Hadley Centre's HCM5, which generates a realistic for 1000 years stable climate (with non-greenhouse CO2) without flux adjustment?
An article without a discernable author, in a non-peer-reviewed journ^H^H^H^H^H newsletter that prides itself on being skeptical (i.e. has an agenda to push). Colour me unimpressed.
Lets check the first four: (i) and (ii) are from the same source. (iii) is an opinion piece which cites such scientific sources as "Newsweek" and the "Wall Street Journal" as its source of facts. The other is from a source called "PRNewsWire".
How about some independent opinions, without axes to grind?
Slashdot Mirror
Yuck.
So what would be an efficient way of doing it? How about something in init.d that 'cat's the programs to /dev/null during the bootup. That way, they'll be in the cache when you need them, but then the kernel VM will handle what you do and don't actually need in the working set.
They also write "XING PED" on roads, so I wouldn't trust the US Highways Department as guardians of the English language.
Its already back running (and has been since this morning, BST) Now the only delays are caused by clearing the backlog of grounded flights.
Me too. Fortunately, you can turn it off.
Go to about:config and set the value of middlemouse.contentLoadURL to false
I felt a whole lot better afterwards.
Yes. But the date of disclosure in this case in 1998, when the MS/Stanford paper was published. Thats the point.
Sheesh.
You're now agreeing with me.And yet, on the only thing on which you initially corrected me, you were completely wrong, and I was completely right.
But it *was* described in a printed publication in the US, in 1998. Thats a publically available piece of research by MS and Stanford university, in a peer reviewed journal.
So this invention ("Bayesian spam filtering") was described in printed publication in the US prior to 2001. Not by the patent applicant, sure, BUT THATS NOT IMPORTANT. Go read the statute.
So, under 35 USC 102(b), a patent filed in 2002 is completely worthless, with respect to any claims covering things described in that article.
Sheesh.
IANAL, but I'd make a better one than you.
[All this is supposing that they believe their patent covers all spam filtering through Bayesian analysis]
Thanks for that link. That paper references this paper (PDF) by M. Sahami, S. Dumais, D. Heckerman, and E. Horvitz."
They seem to be the first Bayesian Spam Filterers. So if the patent belongs to anyone, its Microsoft and Stanford University.
Doesn't that make you feel better.
Hey, I'm a Brit. My country is far better at kissing America's ass than either Canada or Australia.
:)
Credit where credit's due, former colonials!
Indeed, a vital piece of the puzzle. But they got theirs pre-war, from some mislabelled luggage, which doesn't make as good a movie as a raid on a scuppered submarine.
It's called clear, concise writing.
It was U110, captured by the crew of HMS Bulldog, complete with an Enigma machine and up-to-date codebooks (May 9, 1941). U559 and U506 were later captured with Enigma machines, the former by crew of HMS Petard (30 October, 1942), the latter by US Navy Task Force 22.3 (June 4, 1944)
By whom? Who is so interested in perpetuating this that they'll throw billions of dollars into junk science? Why would they do that? Are you suggesting people are writing deliberately erroneous models to keep their funding? That respected journals, with a lengthy and honorable past, knowingly print rubbish because it pays the bills? Wheres your evidence for this idiotic slander?
Remember, the only guys with deep pockets and a need for PR are the energy multinationals. If a climate researcher was really after a fast buck, they'd be the people to suck up to.
Lets check the first four: (i) and (ii) are from the same source. (iii) is an opinion piece which cites such scientific sources as "Newsweek" and the "Wall Street Journal" as its source of facts. The other is from a source called "PRNewsWire".
How about some independent opinions, without axes to grind?